Thinking about the Panasonic Lumix DC-G95 for video? Read this first

The G95 is being promoted as a video and stills camera, yet its video is more heavily cropped than the G85's was.

Thanks to its groundbreaking GH series of cameras, Panasonic has developed a reputation for being one of the strongest brands for consumer video. But the release of the Lumix DC-G95 (known as the G90 outside North America) just draws attention to the fact that brand perception doesn't necessarily convey those qualities across the lineup.

We've got used to Panasonic cameras delivering 4K capture from crops of their sensors but it's beginning to look especially egregious on the G95 for a number of reasons. For a start, we know that Panasonic can do better: the G9 proves that the company is able to provide full-width video. Secondly, Panasonic is explicitly pitching this camera for video as well as stills (the addition of headphone socket and V-LogL speak just as loudly as the press release, in this respect).

But, most pressingly, the standard of the competition has risen: the Fujifilm X-T30 can shoot 4K/30p from a much larger sensor region with no crop (and none of the rolling shutter that holds back Sony's offering in the class).

The challenges/balances of 4K video

This isn't easy, of course. Every manufacturer faces a series of challenges (mainly in terms of processing power, battery consumption, heat generation and rolling shutter), and there are various solutions to this problem.

We've tried to summarize the trade-offs that each possible solution brings:

Detail level

Noise performance

Angle of view

Processing demand

Full-width Oversampling

High

High

Minimal crop

Highest

Pixel Binning

Moderate

High

Minimal crop

Moderate

Line Skipping

Low (risks moiré)

Low

Minimal crop

Low

Cropped Oversampling

High

Moderate

Some crop

High

1:1 Capture

Moderate

Low

Some crop

Low

The G95 essentially takes the fifth option here: using a central chunk of its sensor to capture roughly the number of pixels required to produce its 3840 x 2160 video. This isn't very demanding in terms of processing, so its rolling shutter performance is good and you'll very rarely need to worry about overheating. But there are significant drawbacks, too.

The G95 / G90 already has a sensor that's smaller than its APS-C peers, using less than half of it in 4K video mode (area indicated in blue) puts it at a further disadvantage.

The first is angle of view. The roughly 4100 x 2300 pixel region of its 20MP sensor that is used for 4K is pretty small: imposing a significant 1.25x crop. This means that the 12mm 'wide' end of the kit zoom ends up giving an angle of view closer to a 30mm lens on full frame, rather than the usefully wide 24mm equiv. it'll give you in stills mode. That's likely to be a major creative restriction.

Worse still is the effect on image quality and noise performance. Only using a crop of a sensor is, in essence, the same as using a smaller-sensored camera. The G95 uses a sensor region nearer that of a 1"-type sensor, which means you get noise performance comparable to a smaller (and probably cheaper) camera.

Reality ≠ reputation

Panasonic is far from alone in offering cameras with disappointing video, despite being well thought-of in this regard. Canon built a reputation for video with its EOS 5D II, but appears to have struggled to live up to it (in its consumer cameras at least). Even Sony, which was first to provide video features such as Log capture seems stuck with 8-bit capture at a time when other brands are providing 10-bit and is still introducing cameras with significant rolling shutter. And, though Fujifilm is beginning to build a reputation for great video, it's still happy to promote some models as having '4K' when they can only shoot a pitiful 15 frame per second.

Why is this suddenly a big deal?

There are still plenty of people who are adamant that they don't want video, and perhaps there's something inherently unfair about expecting every aspect of a new model to exceed the best performance we've seen in its class (rather than just showing strengths and weaknesses relative to each specific rival). But to our eyes, the increased crop of the G95's video doesn't fit with our expectations of a contemporary camera being pitched as a stills / video tool. Especially not compared to a camera it nominally sits above, and from a company that trades to a degree on its video expertise.

Fully agree with this criticism. A the price it is going to be sold it is stillborn with much better alternative to my mind from Sony and Fuji but also for sure the G9. A camera neither Sony or Fuji has an answer to at the current price it is sold. What is hlding G9 back is the size I think and weight though.

I like the size and weight of the G9, it's ergonomically superb. You can't have tiny cameras and great ergonomics, weather-sealing and great battery life etc. Every button and dial I need can be operated comfortably using my right hand, they couldn't have done a better job of it for me personally. The battery life is very decent and the ovf is just about the best you can get. Pick your preferences, tiny, awkward and less capable, or bigger and much nicer to use.

Most likely it's a processing power issue, where the GH5 and G9 are downsampling the full sensor to create their 4K image, the G95 is cropping it's 20 Mpx sensor to create it's 4K image which is far less processor intensive.

Much better off with the X-T30, a $100 rig to hold your $150 external monitor and microphone, a $500 3-axis gimbal, and a $20/hr assistant operator to deal with the dozens and dozens of 10-minute 4K clips your X-T30 is saving.

Seems like a much better deal when you don't think about all the consequences of the choice, I guess.

@ Androole Neither is suitable for high-budget work. For low-end work with G90, you'd hire an AC for $20/hr to pull focus for you, $100 for VLog add-on (but still without 10 bit), $200 for viltrox speedbooster, and some ultra wide angle lenses to deal extra 4K crop and low light underperformance.

The G95 is not available now but as you can see above already 6 people indicated they had this camera....which, I believe, those people are the reviewers and they immediately let the camera go once they finish their review, not even want to held with it one more day........

I think coming up with sensor resolution that is some multiple that allows for a simple yet high IQ downsizing algorithm would be ideal. Doubling 4K (8x4=32Mb) is unrealistic (?) for m43, but perhaps some other multiple such as 1.5 (6x3=18Mb)? Then every 3 pixels would be output into 2 pixels.

As the sensor resolutions are increased to meet the demands of stills photography, the crop of the video gets better or worse .... unless the manufacturer implements processor-intensive full-width oversampling.

A intermediate 3:2 binning/skipping as you suggested pretty much amounts to oversampling, since the output result of splitting 3 pixels of data into 2 pixels would have to be computed and averaged. Plus for 4k output on less than 40MP, its more like 2 pixels of data into 3 pixels of output since RGB pixels have to be computed separately.

I'm unsure if they'd do it on the RGB "raw" level (I surmise that would have higher video quality) or after creating each RGB pixel.When/if m43 comes out with 8k video, hopefully the sensor is perfectly sized.

This camera isn’t for pros obviously but what’s worse then a big crop in 4K for the everyday consumer is contrast detect autofocus! I had the G7 and It was terrible, so slow, so frustrating. Also I see they have gone for the same top dial that goes around the shutter button, mine came loose, it’s flimsy plastic and was expensive to fix.

I have to (sadly agree). While nearly all M43 camera have speedy single-shot-AF, but nearly all of them suffer from HORRIBLE C-AF (continuous AF) in video. Gh5/G9/Gh4 tend to randomly (focus drift) resulting in subject being out-of-focus until I retapped the LCD to place subject into focus again. This (was acceptable) back in 2015, but now in 2019 with Canon Dual CMOS & Sony/Fuji Eye AF, reliable Video AF is now the Make-or-Break-deal in a camera. Wish Panasonic abandon its CDAF ONLY stubborness, It is time to embrace PDAF into mirrorless like others have done.

In the SONY A6500 you have to record in 4K and downscale to 1080p to get good quality. This way you can´t get 60p, the "rolling shutter" is high as is the size in memory card, battery drain and temperature.

Few people need to film in 4k. Compare the quality in FHD 1080p of this camera, like the GX9 with that offered by SONY and others. In the SONY A6500 you have to record in 4K and downscale to 1080p to get similar quality. This way you can´t get 60p, the "rolling shutter" is high as is the memory consumption in the card and in the battery. Also the cropping factor in FHD is very low in these G90, GX9 cameras.

It is also good to understand that the sampling mode has much bigger role on 1080 mode than on 4k mode. For example, pixel binning provides much better results than line skipping when using a high-resolution sensor and shooting 1080. 1:1 mode can be used as a very useful tele-converter.

Why would someone specifically interested in video not want good OOC 1080p as an option?

Shooting 4k footage often means it can be published tomorrow, whereas shooting 1080p means it can be published today. Alternatively we can choose to edit/adjust the 1080p content vs publishing unedited 4k content.

As an analogy to still photos, I shoot raw, but being able to share the OOC JPEGs to the social via WiFi and a phone is certainly useful at times. 4k and raw are flexible for serious editing, whereas 1080p (and JPEG) are flexible in terms of quick and dirty editing and quick online publishing.

I did not realize that the topic of the article and discussion is 4k video. Oh wait, the title of the article does not include "4k" at all.

The content of the article lacks any information about FullHD. The thing is, that almost none of the points of the article do apply to FullHD video. This is very important point. I think it's good to extend the content a bit here in the discussion.

I did not know that the G90 is a 1080p only camera. Infact all the marketing and promotional materials show off its 4k capability. Its almost like its a 4k video camera that people that shoot 4k could use.

You can edit 4k video in THESE CAMERAS and downscale to FHD, but lost 60p quality and gain "rolling shutter" issue, cropping image, card memory size, battery drain. No sense if you DON´T NEED 4k footage now. Better if the camera can record direct good quality FHD codecs.

Lol, and then we have Canon RP with its 1.7x crop 😉The only way to make the RP worth a look is by comparing it to the A7 mk 2, a camera from 2015, making the old Sony look more expensive with some strange launch price comparison *yawn*.Talk about fooling buyers...

The Panny seems light years ahead of anything Canon puts out, at least if you have any ideas of using it also for video at all.

Canon have deliberately crippled video in every camera after the 5D II except for the $7000 1DX Mark II and their cinema cameras. Canon will yet regret the day they drove filmmakers and their amateur users into the arms of Sony, Fujifilm and Panasonic.

Panasonic cameras including this G95 have the ability to shoot 4K video clips until the card fills up or the battery runs out. This is a big deal for people like me who shoot live theatrical performances. I can’t stop the show and ask them to start over every 15 or 30 minutes. Shot one last night in 4K for nearly 90 minutes non stop with a GH5.What comparable camera can do this?

To mow your lawn with a drill? Very simple—get a 1/4" bolt that's 6 to 8 inches long, put it through the center hole of your lawnmower blade and use a nut and a lock washer to secure it to the bolt. Chuck it into the drill and you are ready to mow. I'm not sure how you'll do it without cutting off your feet but it was your idea. But you're right. If you're going to shoot long form you need a camera with time code and a proper codec (and a decent lens). I don't understand why people have so much trouble with the idea.

Panasonic have overcome the limitations of “DSLR” cameras. My GH5 with XLR1 attachment and fast lens is exactly the right tool for my work. Even my little GX85 can shoot a single 4K video file until the little battery dies. In testing I had one run for just under two hours. As for the G95 4K crop issue mentioned in this article: undoubtedly they chose to settle on the best possible image from this sensor/CPU combination. Down scaling 20 mp to 4K is no simple task. Throwing out pixels result in aliasing and moire and down scaling requires large amounts of CPU reducing battery life and creating heat. With all the lenses on the market anyone should be able to get the angle they want. A plus for crop is the telephoto increase.I will not be buying this camera because I don’t want that kit lens. Same thing with the GX9. It is hard to understand the reason they won’t sell body only.

Great Articles Richard. I would help to add a Table 4K Feature Breakdown between Fuji X-T30 vs Sony A6400 vs Panasonic G95. Like which camera offer no crop, which require crop, which can take 120p slow motion with sound, which claim to do "120p" on the marketing, but won't allow you to change exposure. As a consume buyer, it would help to cut-through the deceptive marketing.

The G85 and G95 appear to use the same number of pixels to create their video. The higher pixel count of the G95 means this ends up being a bigger crop/smaller region. My assumption would be that they use the same processor.

I don't know about the 120p limitations but it's not uncommon when makers see these modes as slow-mo features, not full video modes.

@Richard Butler ...I guess that comparison table used the manufacturer's prices, because the G85 has been discounted for quite a while now. It has been just under $700 for the kit, and an advantage for the few that want to upgrade to the G95 is that it takes the same batteries and Grip as the G85. The 20MP's and the Headphone connection was a major complaint about this inexpensive camera!

Why do manufacturers continue to artificially cripple their products to get consuners to buy the overpriced flagship models? Its no wonder why people just stick to their phone's cameras instead of playing these games.

Has 0 to do with capitalism. It seems more like anti-cannibalizism. Give the G90 every spec of the G9 for much less money and they won’t sell any more G9 cameras. People get to decide for themselves if they want to spend their money on it or not and possibly even spend their money elsewhere.

@NowHearThis: Wanting to sell higher-priced G9s sounds like capitalism to me. Even so, Sony showed with the A7III that sometimes it's better to give great specs to a more affordable option, as the sales dwarfed those of their more expensive options. So it may just be "capitalism done wrong" in this case, depending on how this sells, of course.

Sony producing such a great product as an A7III and with such great specs and real world results to capture significant market share from its competition sounds more like capitalism to me. Nikon, Panasonic, and Canon all were forced to compete against it, giving consumers more options more choice - that sounds more like capitalism to me. Sony’s next release will likely up the game even more, and, if C/N/P are smart, they’ll follow suit. Each will be trying to innovate (hopefully) in an effort to capture market share from the others. This hopefully will bring lower prices or better and more useful features to compensate. The A7III now costs less than its list price because of competition. That’s capitalism to me.

Frankly I think Pana is still (after all this time) experimenting with their profit margins, their MSRP vs street prices strategy, and overall lineup positioning. Both the GX9 & G95 were viewed as somewhat overpriced and somewhat underwhelming refreshes to the GX85 & G85, and yet the GX85 is still available... In the past they used to have fire sales to clear out old stock.

Maybe they're settling into more of a Sony groove where they try to cover more price points by keeping old models as the budget option, it's worked wonders for Sony tbh. At least Pana is offering up lots of choices, Oly has the one (and a half, c'mon the E-PL barely counts) budget model and a bunch of high end ones with the E-M5 II now getting pretty long in the tooth.

Pana also offers the widest variety of body styles out there, gotta count for something.

I am confused on two points..For a camera without electronic stabilization by pixel shift, why wouldn't they make the crop exactly 3840x2160? (i.e. 1:1)Also, sure, there are various types of "noise" but why wouldn't (say) a 1" sensor with 3840x2160 (large) pixels be roughly the same noise as a 1" 20meg oversampled case?

@s1oth1ovechunk According to the specs it's physical stablisation (sensor shift) hence my question why didn't they make the readout crop area exactly 3840X2160Interpolating 3840x2160 from something only slightly larger like 4100x2300 seems a recipe for artefacts (with little other gains) compared with a clean 1:1

@Richard I certainly "get" that downsampling is a great idea for any camera that (due to other double-purpose such as stills) needs a high native resolution. Downsampling even in its crudest averaging mode "makes up for" the small native pixels (i.e. simulates bigger cleaner ones). But I don't get that it sustains more detail in the SAME final 3840x2160 final output as a native "1:1 capture".

BTW, I reckon what would sell is a camera with exactly 8K 16x9 stills and an on-censor 4-to-1-pixel-averaging readout option producing very "clean" UHD with minimum rolling shutter. (16:9 stills is not for pros, but I'd buy one!)

@photo - because of bayer. Since you don't have 12MP of RGB pixels but just 12M of R, G or B ones. This produces ~0.7 at best of original resolution so for 12MP sensor you get between 6 and 8.5MP of detail depending on AA filter and demosaicing algorithm used.

Even without Bayer, you need to sample the scene at more than 3840 x 2160 to perfectly re-create all the detail that can be conveyed in a 3840 x 2160 final image.

This stills example makes the point fairly clearly: a 12MP camera compared with the results from a 45MP camera, downscaled to 12MP. The final output resolution is the same but there's a lot more detail in the one initially shot at higher res:

I really don't see such a big problem here, at least panasonic has pan and zoom feature build in for the 1080p output. That is the main usage of 4K video for me. Although I do wish they could improve the bitrate of 1080p through firmware update.

There is something obvious to me from this story. 4k on small bodies with small batteries is not yet a polished, accomplished technology. At this stage, 4K is only a marketing gimmickry to catch some customers, as the "plenty megapixels" feature on small and noisy sensors was...

You’re underestimating the intelligence of your audience. No one expects the video from a $1200 camera with a consumer codec to look like it was shot on an Alexa. Every camera is a set of trade offs in which talented people work hard to produce an imaging device at a particular price, size, and spec set. Swings and roundabouts. So instead of taking unfair potshots at the engineers’ decisions it would be far more useful if you helped us understand why the choices were made. Take the cropped video format for example, the engineers didn’t do it jut to vex Richard Butler. So tell us what tradeoff was made, what was gained in this sacrifice.

My best guess is that like the GX8/GX9 it likely uses the older/slower 20MP IMX269 sensor which is why the 4K crop is the same ~1.25x among all these cameras. This sensor is capable of doing only 24-27fps at full 4:3 12-bit resolution. While theoretically the readout speeds should support full width 4K, there may be things later in the pipeline that may slow things down. I was hopeful they would be able to squeeze a little bit more out of it with the G95, but it seems they didn't.

Here are the problems.1) It is 2019, not 2015.2) The previous version has less of a crop.3) Panasonic finally now has competitors when it comes to decent video specs.Here is the non-problem.1) Some people obviously still do not expect much when buying a new camera for $1,200 in 2019.

30fps is the most useful framerate in the age of internet, so... Why would you even bother shooting at 24 or 25 fps? Unless you're working on a theatrical release or material for broadcasting in Europe, there's no reason to use those framerates.

Also, you got your information wrong.

M50 has 1.7 crop in 4K. That is massive. A 24mm equivalent lens becomes a 41mm equivalent. It's so big that there is no Canon lens that can give you wide angle field of view.

A6400 has 1.23 crop in 4K/30. A 24mm equivalent lens becomes a 30mm equivalent. DPReview called this crop "reasonable" when referring to it in M50 review.

G95 has 1.25 crop in 4K. Basically the same as Sony. Again, a 24mm eq. becomes 30mm eq. But since this is Panasonic, it's no longer "reasonable". You call this crop tiny when it is on Sony, but apparently you think it's massive when it's on Panasonic.

What information do I have wrong exactly? The M50 & G95 both have the exact same crop and sensor size when shooting 4K, i.e., a 2.5x crop sensor, this is close to 1" or S16 which is 2.7x crop, an entire format down from S35 on the A6400's 4K in 24p and 25p, and even 30p is still a larger than M43s format like a GH5/GH5s.

Astrotripper,Frame rates of 30/60fps are used in countries where the mains frequency is 60Hz while the 25/50fps are used in countries where the mains frequency is 50Hz, that is to say the vast majority of the countries... 30/60fps are confined to USA, Japan and South Korea mainly...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

@ astrotripperIt's not really the same thing though. The effective change in focal length might be the same but the Panasonic is cropping from an already comparatively small sensor. They are already at a disadvantage in terms of dynamic range and ISO noise which is exacerbated by the additional crop.Where DPR might be being unfair is whether it really matters for this camera. Who is the target audience? If it was aimed at primarily videographers then this camera would be a bit disappointing. If it's aimed at still shooters who occasionally shoot video then this could be a perfect little camera.

When it is about any m43 camera, all issues are hugely exaggerated. When it is Sony, the same issue is just a minor annoyance. DPReview, how about a separate article on A6400's horrible jello effect, or 1.25 crop that makes a 16mm (24mm) lens becomes 30mm in FF terms? Why don't you treat A6400 the same? But I know you won't.

I agree it's pretty bad, but I've personally shot paid work on the 1DC, the original A7s, and now shooting all my paid work on a pair of EOS R & M50, all these cameras have similarly bad rolling shutter, and noone ever noticed or commented to me that a pole is bendy. You just have to practise stability and refrain from sudden frame shifts and you're OK. For me, a crop that increases noise and limits my ability to capture a wide scene and most importantly gives me deep depth of field, is a MUCH bigger issue than the rolling shutter "annoyance" that none but video people notice, however everyone seem FOV, DOF & Noise.

I advice you to try shooting 4K on the A6400 and practise steady shooting, you could change your mind when you see the amazing quality of 4K video when downsampled to 1080p!

Richard, you haven't "reviewed the G95 yet", either. Where is the "special negative article" on the a6400 just 2 days after release? It's 79 days late. It's too late to treat it "on the same basis" now, unless you have a time machine.

You guys have left yourselves open to justified accusations of bias -- again. Why didn't you just make an article on crop video, mentioning a range of cameras, with the G95 in the mix of the article instead of being the "problem camera"?

I take your point, but we absolutely don't consider this to be a 'special negative article.'

Having been told by Panasonic that the G95 was meant to be equally a stills and video camera, I ended up writing pretty mixed initial impressions in our Review in progress. I was then asked to expand on that and see if it would work in a separate article, so this is the result. I went out of my way to stress the shortcomings of the a6400's video (both here and in the G95 comparison table) and made clear than Panasonic is not alone in doing this.

But ultimately, if the expectation is that we can't write any non-review opinion until we've done the same about every camera, then it makes it impossible for us to have any critical opinion outside of reviews.

If we're critical we're accused of bias, if we like something we're accused of being bought-off.

All I can do is promise that the a6400's rolling shutter (or crop and still pretty bad rolling shutter) will be made clear in its review.

Astrotripper - I completely see where you're coming from. I did mention the drawbacks of the Sony, right at the start and linked off to a table showing that it has shocking rolling shutter (or a crop with still quite poor rolling shutter). Preparing that table is what prompted me to write this article.

But if we can't write an article highlighting a drawback until we've written one about every camera, then we can't ever write such an article (since one always has to be the first - though we have written critical articles/informer pieces before).

But I agree that we need to be careful to be even-handed (make sure we do it based on cameras, not brands).

Seems like you might be better off with a G85 unless you really want the extra buttons and 4 MP. I sort of regret selling my G85. It was one of the most fun cameras I've used and it made great images for me too.

Forgetting about video for a minute, the G95 has much better image processing and the 20MP sensor doesn't hurt either. So for stills at least there are some real advantages. I really wish cameras would be reviewed as 2 totally separate reviews (stills and video) with nothing at all to do with each other. Don't even put them on the same page and certainly have different areas for discussing them.

It's an extra dial, extra buttons, USB charging, Bluetooth, unlimited video length (the G85 didn't have that or am I remembering wrong?), Auto ISO in manual, and the newer sensor in the G95's favor... On a slightly larger body with a tighter 4K crop. Not unlike the GX85 vs GX9 tbh.

Curiously the GX85 is still around at a very attractive price and the GX9 is now $200 off... I wouldn't be surprised if the G85 is still around at like $600 (currently $700) in a year and the G95 is $1K. Pana used to try and clear out old stock much faster than this, looks like they might be doing things differently these days.

Oh and the adjustment on the port positions... It's kind of a scattershot list of improvements but some of those are a big deal to some people. Oh and the Live Composite mode, I've used Oly's equivalent for years and it's quite a neat tool to have... So yeah, no point in minimizing all that IMO.

My point is, I rarely touch anything on my cameras except to change aperture, focus mode (single of continuous), focus point size, ISO, exposure mode, focus point position. I like lots of 'bells and whistles' (features) but I don't use many of them most of the time. I think my G85 did very well: https://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/CAMERAGEAR/Panasonic-G85-Gallery/ The G85 is very capable as is and unless someone really needed/wanted some of those features on the G95, they would be better off paying (as of today) $697 for the G85/12-60mm combo. At the

Glad to see Richard weighs in on the 4K crop issue, that's my biggest gripe about GX9, now G95 and stops any urge to upgrade. Panasonic has taken a lazy-ass approach to the recent upgrading, not cool. Not sure the issue can be addressed via FW upgrading, but hope Pany would do something.

"lazy ass" is the right word, but after the recent lame LX100 II and FZ1000 II releases not like it's any surprise.

I think the reality here is that smartphones have crushed the lower end of the camera market - not just compact cameras but now entry/mid range ILC's - and manufacturers don't see a return on R&D investment at this end of the market. Hence these "lazy ass" updates.

$1200 isn't really low end. More like upper middle for a crop camera. I could care less about video, but the camera is overpriced which is unfortunate as it is a good stills camera and has good enough video for the average Joe doing video of their kids school plays.

FWIW - top of the line SoC for flagship phones (Snapdragon or Exynos) is ~70 USD but includes cellular modems and many other features not needed in a camera. Also FWIW - over four years ago Samsung made NX1 that sampled video from the whole width of the sensor at 6.5k (28MP) and then downsampled to 4k in h265. No overheating, no problems. Used a 5 core chip similar to the one in Galaxy S6 IIRC.That's why I am completely confused to see video crippled cameras in 2019.

Otto when I try to make parallels between the camera and phone world I get annoyed so much. Especially when you see a 100$ with a processor that's so much faster and has a brilliant 6" touchscreen that's extremely responsive, it's only in the camera and automotive worlds where you pay them thousands of dollars, yet don't recieve a screen that's as good as 100$ tablet on BMWs, or a screen as good as a 200$ phone on an A9 or A6400.

There must be something limiting them from using a screen and navigatiom system from the 70$ Amazon tablets on 100K+ cars, perhaps there are special requirements for screen or processors when they work in a camera or a car? They can't be so stingy!

1080 is usually good enough for delivery, but at capture you want as much as you can get - UHD in this case. For example, if you capture UHD and deliver FHD you can do pans and zooms in what is originally a video with static framing. You also get better FHD when you downsample UHD.

Good reasons, actually by the time I thought of those aspects I had already posted. The question then, I think people should consider, is if 4k provides enough benefit over 1080 for their needs. Although as mentioned online, I'd say the consensus would most likely be "yes".

That's true. 4K is less about exporting in 4K and more about getting better imagery overall.

-4K is the only way to get true 1080p on a bayer sensor-4K allows for cropping, and making pans/scans-4K gives more detail for VFX/Stabilization-4K gives 4x smaller noise structure, makes it much easier to clean with noise reduction software -4K ensures MUCH finer compression, all blocking and huge ugly patches are 4x finer, this was a major step forward from 5DII days ro GH4. Finer compression artefacts. -4K gives much higher colour detail & information, 4x to be exact, and is the only way to get full 1080p colour detail on a bayer sensor structure -4K gives 4x the tonal fine depth, giving 10bit 4:44 1080p from 8bit when oversampled with a high-end algorithm to a high-end codec like ProRes HQ-4K even ensures you get the best video features on a consumer camera nowadays, noone is giving LOG, HFR, 10bit on an HD-only camera.

"But, most pressingly, the standard of the competition has risen: the Fujifilm X-T30 can shoot 4K/30p from a much larger sensor region with no crop (and none of the rolling shutter that holds back Sony's offering in the class)."

I must admit that I fail to understand the strong focus on 4K. I've been shooting video for marketing, education and technical documentation for 10 years. None of my videos have ever been published in higher resolution than 1080 and most of the time, clients use 720 files due to file size and limitations of viewing equipment. I've mostly gone back to shooting in 1080p, and nobody notices, the same lack of reaction I got when I went from a Nikon D810 to MFT cameras for stills. Vloggers? When do they need 4K? To show an enlarged view of their nose on Youtube?

If I were shooting at a quality level where 4K was needed, I wouldn't be interested in this camera under any circumstances. I would minimum be shooting with a GH5s, or possibly with a Red or Arri.

I hate soft looking videos like from my old (2012) full frame Sony VG900 camcorder that was the world's first full frame mirrorless since it had the same 24mp sensor as the RX1 and shot RAW stills. I will be getting the GH6 when it comes out since it should shoot 4320p 8K . My GH5 shoots 18mp video that plays in 4320p 8K on youtube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xm0BRgyEjM

I almost always shoot 1080p too, but a good reason for 4K is more editing flexibility. You can crop later or add small camera movements and then publish in 1080p. Sort of like shooting RAW for more creative flexibility later, even though the JPEGS would make good photos anyway.

I switched entirely to 4k and now when I look at the old 1080p files on my retina screen I wish i switched earlier. The frame grabs from Sony A9 are also fantastic and I now don't that urge to switch to stills if I am shooting video.

Thing thing with 4K on consumer cameras is: It's the only way to get high quality video!

I was never interested in publishing for 4K, but when the GH4 came out in 2014, the thing is it was SO huge of a step up in image quality in all areas, we finally got actual 1080p lines of detail, we got stills like noise performance with no mushy cheese we got on the Canon DSLRs with the 600D era cameras, but if you give me a camera like the C100 or C300 that shoots extremely good looking 1080p, there is no need for 4K to me.

And even now, no single consumer camera is making good 1080p, they got closer to it, but still now quite. So currently, 4K is litterally the only way to get high image quality, that includes HD resolution and lowlight performance with fine noise and even higher dyanmic range. Also 4K gives you 4X the colour information of 1080p, so 8bit 4:2:0 4K equates closely to 10bit 4:2:2 HD.

After shooting DCI 4K 4096x2160 video with my GH4 in 2014 I never went back to 1080p. Here is a short drag racing video I shot in 2015 in DCI 4K that has over 365,000 views on youtube :https://youtu.be/gITd1PFeylw

4k is a hype for consumers. Even many professionals take 1080p still. 4K requires lots of space, lots of processing power, and in fact 1080p videos look just good. When you watch any movie/advert whatever, you will never ever think "I wish I took this in 4K and then downsample it to 1080p". You just sit and watch.Yes 4K videos look sharper when downsampled to 1080p, so what? Video is a motion picture. Of you don't stop and compare frame by frame, you'll not realize anything.And how many of you actually share 4K anyway? Still, after so many years, 1080p is the most shared and watched resolution. Still. Doesn't matter if "you" do that. No single person I know watched YouTube videos in 4K. No person I know takes 4K videos of their families. None. But everyone tries it at least once until they realize the file sizes and difficulty to process and share.Only people with specific needs use 4K,and probably all of them come to this site and comment here :)

If you were a video professional you'd know that 1080p isn't an option in the production world anymore. I shoot all my personal and family stuff in 1080p, but for work, it's 4K. And it's not about publishing in 4K AT ALL:

-4K is the only way to get real 1080p detail on a bayer sensor-4K allows for cropping, and making pans/scans-4K gives more detail for VFX/Stabilization-4K gives 4x smaller noise structure, makes it much easier to clean with noise reduction software -4K ensures MUCH finer compression, all blocking and huge ugly patches are 4x finer, this was a major step forward from 5DII days ro GH4. Finer compression artefacts. -4K gives much higher colour detail & information, 4x to be exact, and is the only way to get full 1080p colour detail on a bayer sensor structure -4K gives 4x the tonal fine depth, giving 10bit 4:44 1080p from 8bit when oversampled with a high-end algorithm to a high-end codec like ProRes HQ

It's funny how people on this forum need 4K for their hobby, while most of the Oscar winners this year, those that were shot with digital cameras, were shot on ARRI Alexa XT and Mini, two 2.8K cameras (1080p is 2K for those who haven't been able to do the math). Those Hollywood amateurs could improve a lot if they just listened more to people here at dpr. Or maybe they just forgot to read the spec sheet before they bought or rented their cameras?

Luckily for them, the new Alexa versions feature 4K. I'm sure Hollywood movies will improve a lot from now on.

Ebrahim, aren't you a dentist?I know 3 video professionals. 2 of them take wedding videos for 20+ years. None of their clients has wanted a 4K video until now. None. Zero. And none has said "why didn't you take my wedding in 4K and then compressed into 1080p?". I don't think they stop the frames and check details on the screen. None of them wants you to take 4K and compose differently, crop different regions of the videos. They just want good, smooth, nice quality videos.My 3rd friend takes videos of company events. Again none of the companies have asked for 4K video so far.These are all "working professionals". Maybe your "working professionals" are too professional.

The quality of ARRI cameras and the 2.8K sensor means a decent upscale to 4K is possible and thanks to better DR, codec and colour looks a lot better than 4K on consumer cameras. Quality of the image was still important to those Oscar winners of else they would have shot their movies on a Phone. They chose cameras with good detail, codec, DR, sensor size and colour. I choose 4K much for the same reason. It makes for a better final image when you factor in a smaller sensor and camera is being used.

I'm sure you would be perfectly comfortable driving in a car from 1982 as well. But do you maybe expect more today? That is the question. (And personally, I would go 4K everyday IF I had 4K 60, because 4K 30p is not super to 1080 60p in all respects. But given the same frame rates, I would go with 4K every time.

Ozturert I'm a Professional. I've been shooting Wedding Videos for 10 years and some of my clients have asked for 4K. Some of my Corporate clients too. I'm not too Professional. I pick a codec and resolution that delivers the best image to my clients. Picking 4K not only delivers 4K but much better HD video than if I shot only in HD. Cropping is useful for unmanned cameras. Plus some of my clients want stills from the video. 4K is useful there too. I'm sure there are some Professionals still on HD. 10 years ago, there were some Professionals I knew still on SD shooting in 4:3 aspect ratio and arguing I was being too Professional shooting HD in 16:9 ratio. Funny how that went.

This year's Formula 1 cars are much faster than my old Toyota. Still I'd prefer the Toyota for most of all my driving, even if I could get the F1 for the same price. Video quaity is not only about detail and sharpness, both of which can be destracting and take attention away from the story. Video is about a multitude of factors, all of which are hardly ever discussed on this forum.

Reading a bit about the "The Hobbit" 48fps controversy and related themes is a good start for added wisdom.

SteveV4D, it is only normal if some clients ask for it. My point is it is very wrong to generalize it for "all working professionals". Plus if you are a hardcore professional why would you go with G90?????? There is no point even to discuss this under G90 topic.

zakk9 Video quality is more than detail I agree. Which is why 4K is important. The extra resolution downsampled to HD can also lower noise and give better colour. I was editing a Wedding Video shot in 2016 that mixed 4K and HD from Panasonic Cameras and HD shot on a Canon 7D. The stuff on the Canon 7D was awful. Lacking detail so badly, it clashed badly with the other footage. Detail and sharpness are too different things. Watching older programmes, you can see that Film was more detailed than Video, but video looked sharper than Film. Film wins every time and can be delivered in HD and 4K depending on whether it was 16mms or 35mm. Video shot say back in the 70s and 80s despite looking sharper is stuck at SD. I've never watched a video and felt it's greater detail has distracted me from the story. I have however watched some older programmes shot in SD on my 4K TV and the lack of detail can be off putting sometimes.

Ozturert I agree for some Professionals, 4K isn't applicable. There's a cost involved and if your system struggles with 4K and there's no demand for it, you'd be advised not to. My system does cope with 4K and shooting at that resolution offers a range of benefits. I'm not going for the G90. However my interest in Panasonic video has led me to this article and to these comments. Seriously an article criticising cropped 4K in a camera that markets 4K as a key spec is leading to arguments against 4K as a critic of the article is more madness than my contributing to it.

"Ebrahim, aren't you a dentist?" Yes but I also own a small video production company producing commercials and weddings and music videos. I operate most of the work and edit at least 25% of it (The colour grading and finishing" and I can tell you 4K is a really big deal.

4K is actually of more importance in the amateur low bedget world than it is in hollywood, where you're shooting on Alexa with very skilled operators, noone needs lowlight performance as they have massive lights, none needs reframing as they have the right lenses and every camera has an operator, they don't need oversampling as the cameras already do great 1080p, they don't need thr extra colour information to get 12bit or 444, it's already there natively, and they are shooting on cameras that have the highest dynamic range in the camera world (Alexa's dual gain structure) and the smoothest, best looking 2.8K to HD sampling, with cinema glass on top so there are no defeciences in resolving power to compensate for.

Uh, this is still a pre-production model right? So why not wait until final firmware, at least, for such negative criticism? Adjusting for the value of the kit lens this is essentially a $700 camera body, $200 less than the X-T30. Geez! Personally, I would love to own one even with your over-stated "drawbacks" regarding the 4K crop. This is obviously not intended to be an A-footage cam but surely would more than suffice for some B-cam and V-logging applications. Remember that full-sensor un-cropped 4K video capture requires more processing power which generates more heat and requires more battery power. All tough to do in a camera this small and at this price point.

OBVIOUSLY no firmware update will take away the crop factor or all of the minuses. But I think it is wrong to dismiss this camera at this point. Here is a positive preview from a very respected source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui3qje1GmVQ

@Tony Northrup ...You declared the m43 format "Dead", so why are you even here, reading about one of it's (many, many New) products? Are you trying to gather some material from actual Photographers, or are you actually starting to pay attention?

Wow, so much negativity about this camera which is an upgrade to one that has sold well and has been well reviewed in the past. I wonder why? I expect this in the forums but now it seem DPR staff are joining in.If I hadnt got a G9 I would be seriously considering a G90.

The extra crop factor is mostly a non-issue and a list of improvements, also in video, is very nice and probably worth the upgrade.

Apart from this crop in 4K, G95 is the most well rounded video shooting camera at this price point.

It's weather resistant. It has IBIS. It has FAS. And a thoughtfully place mic port and even a headphone jack. There's slo-mo, there's log profile (probably as useless as on Sony). AF is a lot better than on G85, despite being on pre-production firmware. And it's the only camera in this price range without a recording limit. All very good things.

I bet we will now see another article about G95. One that rips it a new one because of AF performance with a pre-production firmware.

I find the article a bit slanted. The comparsion chart shows highlights 4 performance characteristics negatively affected by the video implementation. Buried at the end of the next paragraph are the postive aspects of the video implementation.

- No 4K60- Cropped 4K30- No dual SD- video AF even worse than 2 year old GH5- Battery is tiny

You can buy the G9 for $999 new in the past month at Authorized sellers, sub-$800 on ebay, I just bought the G9 at 1018eur new here in Europe, there's an unlimited hack for the G9 and G9 has slightly superior video AF/IBIS compared with GH5. The G9 shape/size/weight is also slightly better than the GH5.

The G90 should have had all the features of the G9 at 200gr less weight and $200 less price, but they purposefully did not. So stick with the G9 for now.

If that is true, I hope Sony wakes up and does a perfect A7000 or A7Siii with flip to the side display, 4K60 un-cropped unlimited, dual SD, large Z battery, perfect G9-class IBIS and perfect PDAF. I hope Fuji also wakes up does an X-H2 soon that adds IBIS to X-T3, larger battery, flip to the side display. And Canon too should hopefully release an M50 successor and an EOS R with un-cropped 4K60 with perfect Dual Pixel AF. Panasonic's poor Contrast based AF is a shame.

It would be fair to point out that Fuji offers only one previous gen IBIS body to pick out as a valid concern. It is misleading to make a claim about of inadequacy related to having '4K' that can only shoot a pitiful 15 frame per second when the unstated basis for comparison involves an aging model at entry level - two full body categories below. In fact, even the slightly lower level X-T30 has clearly higher 4k video specs than the G95. All brands have some shortfalls, but please point them out fairly.

They are lookong at video and not Ibis. And what they are doing is saying: „hey look, Fuji can do a full sensor readout from a 26MP APS-C sensor with minimal rolling shutter, so others, especially mft, should be able to do it too!“The part about the X-T100 and it‘s 15fps 4K is to show, that Fuji isn‘t doing everything perfectly either.So they call out all manufacturers to get back in the game and start pushing technology again

I mean, for hybrid shooters who aren't exclusively using it as a video camera, the G95 is far superior to the G85. So they aren't actually shooting themselves in the foot. Especially since they are apparently keeping the G85 on sale.

Far superior how? It didn't inherit the improved sensor of the G9, apparently. It has a couple extra control interfaces, and that's good, but what else is there that is so superior to the G85? Even 4K photo modes work better on the latter, thanks to the smaller crop.

The older 20MP sensor is not a revolution, but is a very usable bump in both dynamic range and resolution.

More important to me, though, is the addition of Exposure Compensation with Auto ISO in M mode. This makes using adapted manual lenses much better (for me). Also, the 3rd control dial for directly controlling ISO if desired.

These sound small, but they're significant enough that I would upgrade from my GX7 to a G95, but not a G85, even at a price premium. I keep my cameras for a long time, so I want to be at least a little bit future proof

I think that the important takeaway regarding Fuji is that like stills they seem to be saying all (or most maybe absolute bottom tier is different) our future cameras will have this level of stills and video capability. They didn't try to cripple the XT-30 in either stills or video. I applaud them for that. Panasonic can't say the same.

If you want to be future-proofed, then it might be a decent choice, but then again, the G9/GH5 are much more so. And if one’s budget is limited, then the G85 offers 95% of its capabilities plus a good prime lens for the same money.

The G95’s main target group is people who don’t want to splurge on a GH5 but who want the unlimited recording time and more modern features, without the pro video suite. So, a rather limited group, and a bit of a head scratcher, since the body would be ideal for those of us who want a downsized G9 with the typical feature sacrifices (single card slot, smaller EVF resolution, smaller battery, fewer controls, cheaper build, etc.). Unfortunately, it’s just not a smaller G9, but rather an evolutionary dead-end after the G85 :/

To me, a stills only person now and forever, the video capabilities looks to be fine for people who want to dabble in it, at most. Frankly, I've long been for elimination of any video capabilities from a camera and reducing its price accordingly would be just fine. But that isn't happening. After saying all of that, the camera is okay if you want to take decent stills.

I would gladly accept some intermediate "nonstandard", say, "3K" format only if it were 60p! Those resolution jumps are insane, taking into account that a motion picture is about motion, where 60p is of a great benefit. As for that "nonstandard" lower resolution 60p, I would render it either to great full 60p HD with oversampling or to 4K container accepting slightly reduced resolution and enjoying good, not choppy motion.

Canon, Sony, Pana and Olympus have all said goodbye to the sub-fullframe market and are just trying to milk the last drops out of it without as little investment as possible. It will stop 2020. When 8k becomes a thing and crop sensors will become inappropriate ti accomodate the required resolution. Then the crop sensor cameras will vanish. (This is coming from a m43 user).

8k ? How many people have 4k tv ? And on youtube, how many videos are 4k ? Video of vlogger or funny one are 1080 at best and not a very good 1080. Dpreview video for this camera on YouTube say it’s 1080 but look like a 720 one, thanks to YouTube over compression.

@ThorgremSorry for my 'BS' as you so eloquently put it. You convinced me with your strong arguments like where the R&D money goes or how the market share of crop sensor cameras develops relatively to full frame. Lastly, the big player in the camera market Sharp will solidify the innovation lead of the m43 platform. Now I can sleep well. Maybe my m43 glas will even rise in value.

Many, as I, do not want or need the stops in depth of field of FF glass/body, the DR of FF sensors (except Canon) and generally, the size related to such.Those will still want good quality cropped products. I have the G9 and I see not better option around, maybe the EM1 II in some specific senses.

I shoot FHD only, because for me 4K is simply not needed. My big screens are standing 3m away from the viewer — so 4k resolution is no advantage. And: every modern camera shoots great FHD with 60 or for slomo even 120fps or more. For me the criteria are obviously different...

I use FHD only too and in-camera oversampling in 1080p makes a huge difference. GH5/GH5S beats all existing cameras including A7S II in pure resolving power and unnoticeable rolling shutter. On top of that it shoots 10-bit 4:2:2 which Sony can't.At least they could have added that 2+ year old tech to this new camera (They did not in GX9 which was range-finder style and not fair to compare to G95). Lets wait and see the Dpreview's video comparison.

No, the defining criterion is "Canon's technical options for non-Cinema bodies suck". See, even DPR is saying quite eloquently that it's bad no matter who does it - but of course, for some reason Canon owners need to make everything personal :/

That was the theory, and to be honest, I don't care. Great video has been produced with cameras featuring much worse specs than this. Please show us some real life samples and prove that the camera is as lousy as the theory dictates.

PS. The 7-14 mm lens will be an 18mm equivalent at the wide end with the 1.25x crop. How many shoot video wider than that?

No one because it looks ridiculous.I actually like shooting with the 7.5mm fisheye in 4k in my gx9, that has the same crop. It crops out all of the distortion. It would be nice if I could control the crop but as you say, you can't shoot wider than about 18mm without looking like you're in a textured tunnel if perspective distortion.

I don't want any vlogging camera. I intend to buy this camera for snapshots only. I would welcome lower price without vlog software - I don't wish that Panasonic make me buy the vlog software because it will be useless for me like anyone else not interested in video and that an awful lot of people, believe me. Milan

Canon EOS R has a 1.8x crop when shooting 4K video, so the 10-18mm lens becomes an 18-32mm eqv.

Canon M50 has a 1.7x crop in addition to its native 1.6x crop when shooting 4K, and dual pixel AF is disabled, as is IS. That 11-22mm becomes a 30-60mm eqv.

The G95 has a 1.25x crop when shooting 4K in addition to its native 2x crop, making the 7-14mm a 17.5-35mm eqv., with full AF and IS functionality.

As for the lackluster AF with Panasonic cameras, I've shot video with the GH1, GH2, GH3 and GX8 for around ten years, and although there are cameras with better AF out there, I live very well with the AF I get from these cameras.

I agree with almost all you say but I have no idea how you live with panny AF, do you mean live without it and with manual focus? I actually do that too. AF isn't a concern to me but the OP is asking for vloggers. It's like every manufacturer is purposely building the best vlog camera and removes one thing. With the GH5 it's that damn AF. With the M50 it's that damn 4K. With the A6400 the screen. Just very annoying.

However:

So, the 11-22+M50 is 26.5mm, again perfect for vlogging but it loses AF so I dont consider it usable as a 4K camera.

Hence the M50 checks all the vlogging boxes ONLY of you need 1080p, which is almost everyone,

so I conisider it the current champion. With an 11-22 it's an 18mm FF UWA, with IS, Perfect face detect DPAF, mic input, flippy screen and small and cheap, so really has zero missing as a vlogging setup. Plus entire setup is 799$!

DFD is probably very process heavy, so I'm not surprised that AF works better with 1080p.

As for my work with AF and Panasonic, I haven't done much of that since the GH3 which had neither DFD nor 4K. I did however shoot drifting competitions at night with AF-C and the Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, and even through all the smoke, I could mostly get reliable focus. It must be said though that the Zuiko 75mm is a fantastic lens for contrast detect AF, always fast and reliable, probably the best lens for this in the MFT system. Maybe it wouldn't have worked as well with other lenses.

You know what vlogging sucks anyway. I don’t want to look at your poorly framed face from and arms length away and listen to you talk about yourself. I really don’t care.And I agree with zakk9 about AF.

Not relevant to vlogging per say, but I do believe technologies like touch tracking will change video recording. I’ve seen so many video guys say they always Manual Focus. I believe this is because there haven’t been good enough AF implementations for video yet. I think that’s going to be changing soon. Having just used the Sony A9 with new FW for video, if you can simply touch the subject and watch the little green box follow it around the screen while it moves, you pan, and zoom, and the AF is locked all the time? There becomes little reason to manual focus. As video resolution continues to increase to 4k and beyond, this is going to become more crucial.

More about gear in this article

Panasonic has announced the Lumix DC-G95 (G90 in some regions), which is a modest step up from the G85 (G80). The major changes include a bump in resolution to 20MP, a refined design, built-in V-LogL and a headphone socket.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.